Credentials, Agendas, Biases, Legal Fallacies In Discussions On DDT And Humans (Research Paper Sample)

Name
Course number
Tutor’s name
Date
Credentials, agendas, biases, legal fallacies in discussions on DDT and humans.
For decades, the campaigns promoting the use of DDT to combat the spread of malaria, have identified only the positive side of DDT while withholding information on the negative effects of the chemical. The credentials have been to lure more people into use of DDT for malaria control, while limiting meaningful discussions that could enlighten users on dangers of DDT use. While DDT has been used successfully for malaria control, the chemical has myriad negative effects (Herren 283; Bate et al. 1). The breakdown product of DDT referred to as DDE has been linked to male infertility, delays in development, damage of the nervous system, low birth weight and miscarriages, and cancers (Pesticide Action Network 1). The controversies here is that proponents of DDT use, shy away from discussing these adverse negative effects of DDT on humans. The agenda, in this case, has been to use fallacies to increase the use of DDT for malaria control, while exposing millions of people to other adverse effects of the chemical.
One clear legal fallacy engaged in by proponents of DDT is the fallacy of omission. The fallacy happens when the use of DDT is encouraged while leaving out the dangerous negative effects of the chemical (Herren 282). Leaving out relevant material in the argument misdirects the users by making them engage in anchoring biases. Users tend to embrace the use of DDT not knowing the negative health effects they are exposed to.
Another fallacy committed by the controversy surrounding DDT use is the appeal to tradition. The proponents of DDT insist on the use of the chemical just because people have used it successfully to control malaria. The argument, in this case, is made true, because people have used it before and have believed in it. Such a fallacy leads to availability cascade biases especially when the collective belief becomes true as a result of repeated use. That the premise has been useful in the past does not mean that the premise must work in the future. The argument is not relevant because it brings out the use of DDT as common sense, yet it does ignore vital questions. For example, there are alternative safe ways of combating malaria such as the use of mosquito nets, which will work better than DDT (Blumberg et al. 2080). There are also some documented drawbacks of DDT that the argument fails to consider (Pesticide Action Network 1). The new evidence on negative health benefits of DDT also puts the whole argument in doubt.
The controversy surrounding the use of DDT on humans has also engaged in an appeal to force fallacy. In many ways, the supporters of DDT use have used the threat of malaria to force the audience into accepting the use of DDT (Herren 282). ...